I mentioned the fact of US colonial history, and how this created the system of land ownership from which you currently benefit.

How would an answer to this question demonstrate that land ownership must necessarily cease in the absence of a state, as you have claimed (though you made the opposite claim regarding Indians?

This seems irrelevant.

In any event, you have failed to answer my question:

if a state ceased to exist; that doesn't necessarily mean ownership of land would cease then, according to your argument. Is that correct?Yes or No?

So you cannot give an example of land ownership staying the same after the state failed.

Meanwhile, the history of indigenous people shows that their land claims were ignored, dismissed, no longer recognized, whatever, after colonialism.

When I said this;

That does not supoort your claim that monopolies can only exist with state support.

You claim that there is no logical argument; I have one posted in a thread specifically dedicated to this purpose. You have just refused to debate me on it for the SEVENTH TIME!

It doesn't look like i'm the one who is dodging, given that fact.

I demostrated such via logical argument and have challenged you to debate it. You have refused. I believe the argument as its valid and apparently irrefutable

Again, the fact that you refuse to provide an argument is a dodge.

The fact that you claim some other argument might be related is inconsequential.

Another absolute statement.

Please provide evidence for this claim.

Capitalism has never existed without a state.

You are free to provide a contrary example that would disprove this.

Can regulations increase costs for businesses? Yes or No?

Can regulations increase the capital needed to start a business? Yes or No?

Can regulations increase the amount of time a businessman spends on government compliance and does this take away time he could otherwise spend on serving customers? Yes or No?

If these questions lead to an argument, please make it.

Now, we have already seen how regulations can decrease costs and increase customers.

One of the costs for running a business is insurance. Complying with all applicable regulations in terms of safety can greatly reduce these costs, since the business is already operating at a verifiably safer level than one that is not covered by regulations.

Victoribus Spolia wrote:Your argument is ambiguous as it assumes a universal condition which did not obtain in all places and in the same manner.

Thus your claim/accusation is unsubstantiated.

No, since my claim was specifically about US colonialism as a cause of the state supported system of land ownership from which you currently benefit.

If you thought I was making a universally applicable argument, then you misunderstood.

You are the one who made the claim and thus have the burden of proof.

Please provide such. Thanks.

You go to great efforts to avoid debate.

And you cannot give an example of land ownership staying the same after the state failed.

And capitalism as it currently stands has state support of land ownership, and this is the situation you currently reside in.

How do you know the land I live on was not purchased from indians without violence?

If it was purchased in the capitalist system, then this transaction would have occurred after capitalism was enforced at gunpoint and the indigenous aystem of ownership was already destroyed by colonialism.

Actually it does; and you have yet to provide the exceptions you claim would or could exist; either from historic precedent or logical argument.

No, it does not describe how monopolies require state support.

Please explain how.

So you have no way of demonstrating this universal claim of yours?

Got it.

Again, if you wish to provide some sort of historical example of capitalism existing without a state, or a logical argument as to how this would work, please do so.

So you are unable to answer these questions then?

If these questions lead to an argument, please make it. If you are unable or unwilling to do so, I will assume you will continue in the same vein of incorrectly assuming motives on my part.

Pants-of-dog wrote:No, since my claim was specifically about US colonialism as a cause of the state supported system of land ownership from which you currently benefit.If you thought I was making a universally applicable argument, then you misunderstood.

Still too ambiguous as the acquisition of North American land was not uniform in the manner of appropriation.

Pants-of-dog wrote:You go to great efforts to avoid debate.

Projection; you are the one switching the burden of proof; which is fallacious.

Pants-of-dog wrote:And you cannot give an example of land ownership staying the same after the state failed.

Once again; you argued that my land ownership required the state for both its creation and continued existence; you then contradicted yourself when you claimed that indians had ownership even though they don't have states in these sense you are describing. Thus, ownership doesn't require a state even by your own arguments.

Pants-of-dog wrote:And capitalism as it currently stands has state support of land ownership, and this is the situation you currently reside in.

I never denied this, but it really is irrelevant, as the question is whether land ownership is dependent on a state (your claim); which requires proof FROM YOU.

Pants-of-dog wrote:If it was purchased in the capitalist system, then this transaction would have occurred after capitalism was enforced at gunpoint and the indigenous system of ownership was already destroyed by colonialism.

So it was impossible for any non-indigenous people to purchase land justly? Is that your claim? Yes or No?

Pants-of-dog wrote:No, it does not describe how monopolies require state support.

Yes it does.

Note: you have yet to provide evidence for any one of your numerous claims.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Again, if you wish to provide some sort of historical example of capitalism existing without a state, or a logical argument as to how this would work, please do so.

So no evidence then?

Pants-of-dog wrote:If these questions lead to an argument, please make it. If you are unable or unwilling to do so, I will assume you will continue in the same vein of incorrectly assuming motives on my part.Can you show how regulations are a problem for businesses?

So you can't answer my questions then?

"It is when a people forget God that tyrants forge their chains. A vitiated state of morals... is incompatible with freedom."

Victoribus Spolia wrote:Still too ambiguous as the acquisition of North American land was not uniform in the manner of appropriation.

If you want to show that your specific land ownership has nothing to do with the regular pattern of US colonialism, do so.

As far as I know, there are no fairly ceded lands in North America.

Once again; you argued that my land ownership required the state for both its creation and continued existence;

It does.

you then contradicted yourself when you claimed that indians had ownership even though they don't have states in these sense you are describing. Thus, ownership doesn't require a state even by your own arguments.

Since indigenous people did not own land in the capitalist sense, it did not require a state the same way capitalism does.

Instead, all the diverse indigenous land ownership systems each required different institutions to support them according to their various specific cultural contexts.

So, to be clear: I never said all land ownership requires a state. I said capitalist land ownership does.

All land ownership systems require social support in the way of several institutions that are specific to each cultural and economic system.

Since colonialism destroyed local indigenous governance and the associated supports for land ownership, indigenous land ownership were no longer socially recognized.

So, history supports my claim about economic systems being supported by the state. This, plus the fact that capitalism has never existed without a state, is evidence for my claim.

I never denied this, but it really is irrelevant, as the question is whether land ownership is dependent on a state (your claim); which requires proof FROM YOU.

I provided evidence by pointing out that capitalism has never existed without a state.

So it was impossible for any non-indigenous people to purchase land justly? Is that your claim? Yes or No?

No. If the land was purchased according to indigenous laws, then it would be a just purchase of land.

If that is the case with your land, then you are merely benefiting from state maintenance of your claim and not the creation and maintenance of your claim.

Yes it does.

Note: you have yet to provide evidence for any one of your numerous claims.

How does it support your claim that monopolies require state support?

So no evidence then?

The absence of any historical examples of capitalism existing without a state is evidence.

So you can't answer my questions then?

I probably could, if there was a benefit for me.

Now, since you cannot show how regulations are bad for business, this may well be why businessare not supporting libertarians in the USA: because it would be bad for business and business owners know it.

I choose to go into a hotel, I did not choose to be born in the United States and be assigned an SS#.

So what? Forty million Americans chose to come here from another country. You have the same option they do. You can leave. Are you claiming to be some kind of special snowflake because of the accident of your birth?

This is true; and though any state is a violation of the NAP; not all states are predicated on the false concept of public ownership (as social contracts are); namely minarchist monarchies which assume as sacrosanct the concept of private property as such legitimizes their own authority.

@Victoribus Spolia

Well, funny thing happened a while back my friend, when I was considering your ideas on the social contract nation-state (presumably not necessarily the ''representative democracies'' alone, but all societies considered in a universal abstract sense). I understood in a sudden flash why you came to that conclusion, and so I (hopefully not personally seen as 'waffling' on these issues) had to return to the idea of the State, to preserve ideals precious to my own worldview. A man can understand why a friend is wrong, I believe, and still be friends, because the basis for true friendship is common loyalty to the same Sovereign, greater than ideology.

Since we both believe that ''reformists'' and half-measures will not cut it, then it remains to cut the floor out from under our fellows here, as to their choices. Shall we?

But man is a fickle and disreputable creature and perhaps, like a chess-player, is interested in the process of attaining his goal rather than the goal itself.Fyodor Dostoevsky

LaDexter wrote:Right now, we are nowhere on election day. Gary Johnson was a total failure, in part because he wasn't nearly as "libertarian" as he initially claimed.

In 2016, the Libertarian Party had a "golden opportunity," with both major parties picking nominees with over 50 negative ratings in the polls. That is likely to repeat in 2020, and we need to do better than Gary Johnson.

First Choice would be Jesse Ventura, and he needs to be pressured to make up his mind early this time, instead of sucking all the oxygen until it was too late and then not running (again). If Jesse won't run, we need to find a real candidate so that the American voter will have a real "third option" in 2020.

Aside from President, we need more candidates across the board. The American people are now almost all "hater voters," meaning they vote "against" instead of "for." A real third option and an aggressive campaign may very well open up this pathetic excuse of a "2 party" system that is railroading America into the gutter at warp speed.

Dear @LaDexter By the time the Libertarian, Constitution, and Natural Law Parties (also the Veteran Party of America)decide what they wantit's called self-government by the CONSTITUTION.

NOT DEPENDING ON PARTY.

All these groups that CLAIM to want to limit and check govt BY THE CONSTITUTIONshould unite around JUST THAT.

Let ALL Parties govern THEMSELVES and THEIR MEMBERS under variations of by laws,but don't expect parties to be able to dictate rules if that goes against the very idea ofLIMITED GOVT BY THE CONSTITUTION (not depending on legislating more and more laws for people)

The Libertarians were collaborating with Progressives on a Third Party movement toovercome the monopoly by the two party system. The Greens can also come into playwith the concepts of proportional representation by party and worker owned coops:* proportional representation by party (where the Electoral College system can beExpanded to have reps from all parties represented in every district convening to redress grievances by taxpayers and citizens complaining of govt abuses, waste and conflicts of interest)* conflict resolution and consensus decision making(so that only the policies that the public agrees on as Constitutional can be passed through Govt,and any policies with faith based biases and beliefs that cause disagreements remain privatefor people and States to resolve locally instead of pushing political beliefs through federal govt to establishcontested as unconstitutional)* local worker owned cooperatives, including cooperative health care, social programs and benefits managed, decided and funded democratically by district or state, replacing federal programs contested as unconstitutional

Bringing ALL the Third Party movements and members together who are left out of the two-party systemwould not only help unite support around democratic reforms and Constitutional restoration of limits on govt,but will bring forth the leaders who CAN represent the diversity of America instead of elite monied interests.